4. ἴσος εἶναι τοῖς παροῦσι
— to conform to existing conditions, τοῖς ἤθεσι τῶν Αακώνων
(Schol.), or better, to the circumstances in which he found himself
as a Σπαρτιάτης
. (Various alterations of the text have been proposed here, e.g. ε̈ͅν τοῖς παροῦσι
, in his present conduct
Croiset—or ἐπὶ τοῖς π
. Stein—but there seems to be no very definite objection to it as it stands.)
5. τά τε ἄλλα
=‘both,’ looking as to what follows; so that we have here an explanation of υποψιας ... παροῦσι
. (Some edd. insert καί
6. ἐξεδεδιῄτητο κτλ
.=ἔξω τῶν ... ἐδεδιῄτητο
7. τὸν τρίποδα
—this was a golden tripod suppoited by a bronze stand in the shape of three serpents twisted together (Herod. 9.33
). It was dedicated after Plaraea. The gold part was afterwards destroyed by the Phocians in the Sacred War (Pausan. x. xiii. 9), but the stand was removed to Byzantium, and still exists at Constantinople. See Hicks Man. Hist. Inscr.
10. τὸ ἐλεγεῖον
—this ‘couplet,’ which ‘he dared to have inscribed on his own authority,’ is attributed to Simonides of Ceos. In the Anthology it reads thus:
Ἑλλάνων ἀρχαγὸς ἐπεὶ στρατὸν ὤλεσα Μήδων Ηαυσανίας Φοίβῳ μνᾶμ᾽ ἀνέθηκα τόδε
was a title of the Spartan kings.
14. εὐθὺς τότε
—at the time that the tripod was offered.
—although the offensive inscription was removed.
ἀδίκημα καὶ τότ᾽ ἐδόκει εἶναι
—(this act) was thought even at that time to be a crime.
The subject of ἐδόκει
, the act of having the couplet inseribed. τότ᾽
was first adopted by Classen for τοῦτ᾽
, and καὶ ἐπεί γε δὴ ἐν τούτῳ καθειστήκει
requires it as a contrast of time
: also there is no point in καὶ τοῦτ᾽
, as no other offence of P. in earlier times has been mentioned to justify καί
. Stem inserts τοῦτο
, but this is not necessary.
18. ἐπεί γε δὴ ἐν τούτῳ καθειστήκει
when he was accused of ‘Medism.’ ὲπεί γε δή
is more emphatie than ἐπειδή
25. οὐδὲ τῶν ... πιστεύσαντες
—an explanation of οὐδ᾽ ὥς
—the technical word for an informer who had not full citizen-rights
—he was a slave from the Thracian town Argilus.
5. αὐτοῦ ... ἐκείνῳ
—applying to the same person; cf. IV. 73. 4
; VI. 61. 7 κατέγνωσαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν μετ᾽ εκείνου
: Audoc. 1, 64 εἶπον αὐτοῖς ... ἐκείνοις δέ
vii. 14 εἰ προσγενήσεται ... πρὸς ἐκείνους χωρῆσαι, διαπεπολεμήσεται αὐτοῖς
: Plat. Rep.
p. 343 C εὐδαίμονα ἐκεῖνον ποιοῦσιν ὑπηρετοῦντες αὐτῷ
μηνυτὴς γίγνεται, δείσας ... καὶ παρασημηνάμενος ... λύει —καί
, which should strictly be λύσας
: the constn. is thus changed from partic. to finite verb, as 2.47 λεγόμενον μὲν ... οὐ μέντοι ἐμνημονεύετο
: vii. 13 τῶν ναυτῶν μὲν ... ἀπολλυμένων, οἰ δὲ θεράποντες ... αὐτομολοῦσι
Stem reads δς δείσας
, but no change is needed. καί
does not join γίγνεται
because the clause with λύει
is anterion in time to γ. μηνυτής
, and such a hysteron proteron
is without example in Thuc.
6. κατὰ ἐνθύμησίν τινα
, because he noticed.
; ‘for Thuc. says παρασημηνάμενος τὴν σφραγῖδα
in the sense of παρατυπώσασθαι
’ Pollux viii. 27. This reading, restored by Hude, is better than παραποιησάμενος
, which is probably a gloss on it.
ἢν ψευσθῇ τῆς δόξης
—i.e. if his suspicion about the contents of the letter proved false. He could then replace the seal and go on to Artabazus. Did it not occur to him that even in this case he might ‘never return,’ i.e. be put to death?
9. ἢ καὶ ἐκεῖνος
—i.e. in case Pausanias should ask for the letter back before the messenger left, in order to alter something in it. If the messenger's suspicion about the letter proved false, he would say nothing, but seal up the letter. But suppose the man's suspicions proved true
, why should be not have contemplated an immediate visit to the ephors, without giving Pausanias time to ask for the letter back? In point of fact this is what the man did. (The text is suspected by some edd.—e.g Herwerden and Stenp—but the confusion of the messenger's motives seems to come from Thuc.)